We aren't talking about new versions. He was saying that they were going to later charge people to use the version of Windows 10 they upgrade to today. It's like the chain posts about Facebook charging people if they don't repost something on their wall. It's an absurd claim which anyone with any sense of reality knows is false.
Sigh... You're pointing to a throughly debunked and retracted claim. Having your router deny all connections causes the networking stack to retry them, hence the overblown connection numbers. The IP addresses listed at things like the NetBIOS and DNS broadcast IPs (used by machines on a local network to identify each other).
Apple has never said that they won't charge a subscription for iOS. That doesn't make it any less absurd to say they will.
And you know what? Microsoft *has* said that there will not be a subscription for Windows 10. Multiple times. They've said *very clearly* that the device will receive updates so long as it's supported (meets the minimum system requirements, and subject to usual OEM support commitments for drivers and such). It is a *lie*, nothing less, to tell someone that MS is ever going to charge a subscription for them to keep using Windows 10 on their device.
You obviously have no idea what the word "spyware" means. By no accepted definition does anything in Windows 10 contain even a trace of it. Indeed, Microsoft is incredibly conservative (probably too much so) in personal information it collects and uses. Compare this to say, Android or Chrome OS, and it's laughable to suggest that Windows is "spying" on you.
Wait, so Apple shouldn't have been allowed to use its iPod monopoly to gain a foothold in the smartphone market? Or its monopoly of the smartphone market to gain a foothold in the tablet market? Or that Google shouldn't have been allowed to use its internet advertising monopoly to gain a foothold in the mobile device market?
Never mind that the tablet market *is* the PC market (is the laptop market, etc). Or that Microsoft basically invented the tablet market. Or that Windows Vista was going to have an app store but that it was killed because of over-regulation.
Antitrust regulations are there for good reasons. But none of those reasons have anything to do with handicapping successful companies or preventing them from leveraging their strengths to remain relevant in a changing market.
Oh, and it boggles my mind that you think Microsoft should be fined for trying to adapt, while simultaneously you claim that they're failing at it. You don't really think these things through before you post them, do you...
Except that you can still install any desktop app you wish. Or side load Metro/Modern apps for free (just have to install a *free* dev license and renew it every few months).
And it's not "taxed" at anything, and certainly not "30%+". The cut they take is from 20% to 30% max, and it's not a "tax." It's a fee to support the Store infrastructure. Considering everything they take care of for you regarding distribution, marketing, installation, updates (including updating frameworks/libraries like the CRT or WinJS) it is hard to argue that it isn't worth the price of admission.
Or the fact that Apple provides webkit as a core part of their OS's API set (upon which much of the included UI and apps are built)?
You act like history hasn't completely and utterly validated Microsoft's (ahead-of-it's-time) assertion that the web platform would be crucial to the future of computing.
Actually it makes it so that IE can only worry about writing to D2D/DWrite and whether there's GPU acceleration or not is something IE doesn't have to worry about.
The changes to the API surface from Windows 2000 to Windows 7 are innumerable. You must be joking if you think the only change is transactional filesystem access.
Of course "you can get the same functionality." You could write the entire OS yourself if you wanted. But if you actually want to push things forward your best bet is to build upon the works of others, like the huge amount of infrastructure the Windows team has put into each successive release.
I told the recruiter that I didn't feel comfortable signing such an agreement since Microsoft works in so many different areas that there was no way to avoid some sort of conflict.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Microsoft agreement doesn't say what you just said. It says you can't immediately go work on *exactly the same thing* at a competitor. Plenty of people go off to work at competitors, they just work on a different kind of project for at least a year.
To what are you referring when you mention an equivalent to.htaccess?
Windows directory permissions are defined by ACLs (Access Control Lists) which are part of the NTFS file system. In Vista or later, this includes a Mandatory Access Control entry called an "integrity level" - defining which level of trust a process must have in order to access this file or directory.
Aside from ACLs, there should be nothing preventing you from accessing a folder.
A distinction I failed to make in my previous post was that unlike sudo, UAC doesn't run processes as a different user at all. Instead it runs them as the same Administrator user, but in a special security context which works as if the user were not an Administrator at all.
Further, I listed several ways in which UAC is unlike sudo. MAC, UIPI, and so on...
SELinux seems to bring some aspects of Windows' security model to Linux. But I haven't researched it enough to know exactly how close it's come.
Windows NT has always supports the notion of "root" level (aka "Administrator") accounts and standard or limited user accounts. It has also long supported "runas" - the equivalent of sudo. The purpose of that is to allow a standard user to run a program in the context of another user, generally an Administrator, on the same desktop.
UAC, on the other hand, could be called the opposite of "sudo." Instead of running specific processes as a more privileged user, it allows an Administrator to run processes as a LESS privileged user, with varying privilege levels. Technically, Windows has also supported something like this in the past via Discretionary Access Control mechanisms and custom security tokens. UAC brings several additional pieces to the table such as: Mandatory Access Control, more direct user/system control over this behavior, and various bits of supporting infrastructure to make it both more secure (i.e. UIPI) and more compatible with existing programs (File System and Registry virtualization, for example).
UAC also allows programs such as IE and Chrome to run at below-standard privilege levels ("protected mode" or "sandbox" mode), enables secure consent prompts for elevation (more convenient and often more secure versus credential prompts which are vulnerable to spoofing attacks), and more.
Federated Search is a Windows 7 feature and did not exist in Vista.
Vista can query a remote Vista or Windows Search 4 index for a file share, but that's separate from the feature we call Federated Search, where Windows 7 can federate queries to OpenSearch enabled sources such as SharePoint, Search Server, FAST, etc.
The whole point of Federated Search is that the server is NOT running Windows Search. Instead it can be running SharePoint / Search Server, FAST, or virtually any other indexing solution. Lots of indexing solutions can output RSS or Atom over HTTP, or can be easily extended to do so. Then you get the same local file experience users expect from Explorer, but with whatever remote index you want.
Also, Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 do not run WS4, they have a newer version of the indexer that *is* significantly faster and scales significantly better.
Actually it's quite relevant. Windows 7 can federate queries to a SharePoint or Search Server index using OpenSearch.
Also, Windows Vista and Win7 (and even XP with WS4 to some extent) can query remote Windows Search indexes. I use this functionality along with my Windows Home Server (running WS4) for my personal needs.
For indexing files, you're better off using Windows Search 4, a free download for Windows Server 2003. The old content indexing service is deprecated and a much older technology. It's useful in some particular scenarios but for a smaller (100,000 - 250,000 items*) corpus of file content, WS4 will work much better. And for larger repositories, SharePoint and Microsoft Search Server are almost always better options.
* = Server 2008 R2 / Win7 has a newer version of the Windows Search indexer that scales better to even larger corpuses.
Microsoft has a few solutions you can consider depending on your specific needs.
With Windows XP/2003, Vista/2008, or Windows 7 - you can install Windows Search 4 (not necessary on Win7, but recommended for Vista) on the server side to index the content, and then if you have WS4 (or Win7) on the client, it will automatically query the remote index when you perform searches against that file share.
Alternatively, if you run the free Microsoft Search Server (the Express version is free) which is based on SharePoint, you can index files on the server and then set up a Federated Search connector in Windows 7. Windows 7 supports federating to OpenSearch + RSS/Atom enabled sources, and SharePoint / Search Server support this. On current versions there's a bit of manual work to create the right OpenSearch description file, but it's pretty easy. The upcoming 2010 SharePoint version provides those out of the box (as well as some additional enhancements supported by Windows 7).
I'm actually the developer who built the OpenSearch feature in Windows 7, so if you have questions about the search options in Windows 7, you can visit my blog (brandonlive.com) and/or e-mail me (via my site).
Slashdot Mirror
We aren't talking about new versions. He was saying that they were going to later charge people to use the version of Windows 10 they upgrade to today. It's like the chain posts about Facebook charging people if they don't repost something on their wall. It's an absurd claim which anyone with any sense of reality knows is false.
Sigh... You're pointing to a throughly debunked and retracted claim. Having your router deny all connections causes the networking stack to retry them, hence the overblown connection numbers. The IP addresses listed at things like the NetBIOS and DNS broadcast IPs (used by machines on a local network to identify each other).
http://www.zdnet.com/article/w...
Everything you're saying is just rubbish.
Oh I see, you're just insane. Got it.
Apple has never said that they won't charge a subscription for iOS. That doesn't make it any less absurd to say they will.
And you know what? Microsoft *has* said that there will not be a subscription for Windows 10. Multiple times. They've said *very clearly* that the device will receive updates so long as it's supported (meets the minimum system requirements, and subject to usual OEM support commitments for drivers and such). It is a *lie*, nothing less, to tell someone that MS is ever going to charge a subscription for them to keep using Windows 10 on their device.
You obviously have no idea what the word "spyware" means. By no accepted definition does anything in Windows 10 contain even a trace of it. Indeed, Microsoft is incredibly conservative (probably too much so) in personal information it collects and uses. Compare this to say, Android or Chrome OS, and it's laughable to suggest that Windows is "spying" on you.
Ugh, not more of this BS. Windows 10 will never cost you a subscription. It does not contain spyware. Repeating these lies will not make them true.
It most definitely does not work that way.
Wait, so Apple shouldn't have been allowed to use its iPod monopoly to gain a foothold in the smartphone market? Or its monopoly of the smartphone market to gain a foothold in the tablet market? Or that Google shouldn't have been allowed to use its internet advertising monopoly to gain a foothold in the mobile device market?
Never mind that the tablet market *is* the PC market (is the laptop market, etc). Or that Microsoft basically invented the tablet market. Or that Windows Vista was going to have an app store but that it was killed because of over-regulation.
Antitrust regulations are there for good reasons. But none of those reasons have anything to do with handicapping successful companies or preventing them from leveraging their strengths to remain relevant in a changing market.
Oh, and it boggles my mind that you think Microsoft should be fined for trying to adapt, while simultaneously you claim that they're failing at it. You don't really think these things through before you post them, do you...
Except that you can still install any desktop app you wish. Or side load Metro/Modern apps for free (just have to install a *free* dev license and renew it every few months).
And it's not "taxed" at anything, and certainly not "30%+". The cut they take is from 20% to 30% max, and it's not a "tax." It's a fee to support the Store infrastructure. Considering everything they take care of for you regarding distribution, marketing, installation, updates (including updating frameworks/libraries like the CRT or WinJS) it is hard to argue that it isn't worth the price of admission.
Except that this statement is meaningless and compares apples and oranges. But research is for nerds, am I right?
Or the fact that Apple provides webkit as a core part of their OS's API set (upon which much of the included UI and apps are built)?
You act like history hasn't completely and utterly validated Microsoft's (ahead-of-it's-time) assertion that the web platform would be crucial to the future of computing.
Because the system requirements page says 10.6.3 is the minimum.
Actually it makes it so that IE can only worry about writing to D2D/DWrite and whether there's GPU acceleration or not is something IE doesn't have to worry about.
The changes to the API surface from Windows 2000 to Windows 7 are innumerable. You must be joking if you think the only change is transactional filesystem access.
Of course "you can get the same functionality." You could write the entire OS yourself if you wanted. But if you actually want to push things forward your best bet is to build upon the works of others, like the huge amount of infrastructure the Windows team has put into each successive release.
I told the recruiter that I didn't feel comfortable signing such an agreement since Microsoft works in so many different areas that there was no way to avoid some sort of conflict.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Microsoft agreement doesn't say what you just said. It says you can't immediately go work on *exactly the same thing* at a competitor. Plenty of people go off to work at competitors, they just work on a different kind of project for at least a year.
The same #define is used for all APIs/DDIs these days. Take a look at shobjidl.idl (shell interfaces) for example.
What could there possibly be in Windows 7 that Vista lacks?
Just look at the public IDL files in the Windows SDK and look at what's inside #ifdef NTDDI_WIN7 blocks.
Hint: It's not a small list.
To what are you referring when you mention an equivalent to .htaccess?
Windows directory permissions are defined by ACLs (Access Control Lists) which are part of the NTFS file system. In Vista or later, this includes a Mandatory Access Control entry called an "integrity level" - defining which level of trust a process must have in order to access this file or directory.
Aside from ACLs, there should be nothing preventing you from accessing a folder.
This was primarily done to enable admin scripts (among others) to function on 64-bit versions of Windows without change.
A distinction I failed to make in my previous post was that unlike sudo, UAC doesn't run processes as a different user at all. Instead it runs them as the same Administrator user, but in a special security context which works as if the user were not an Administrator at all.
Further, I listed several ways in which UAC is unlike sudo. MAC, UIPI, and so on...
SELinux seems to bring some aspects of Windows' security model to Linux. But I haven't researched it enough to know exactly how close it's come.
UAC is quite different from su / sudo.
Windows NT has always supports the notion of "root" level (aka "Administrator") accounts and standard or limited user accounts. It has also long supported "runas" - the equivalent of sudo. The purpose of that is to allow a standard user to run a program in the context of another user, generally an Administrator, on the same desktop.
UAC, on the other hand, could be called the opposite of "sudo." Instead of running specific processes as a more privileged user, it allows an Administrator to run processes as a LESS privileged user, with varying privilege levels. Technically, Windows has also supported something like this in the past via Discretionary Access Control mechanisms and custom security tokens. UAC brings several additional pieces to the table such as: Mandatory Access Control, more direct user/system control over this behavior, and various bits of supporting infrastructure to make it both more secure (i.e. UIPI) and more compatible with existing programs (File System and Registry virtualization, for example).
UAC also allows programs such as IE and Chrome to run at below-standard privilege levels ("protected mode" or "sandbox" mode), enables secure consent prompts for elevation (more convenient and often more secure versus credential prompts which are vulnerable to spoofing attacks), and more.
So no, UAC is not a ripoff of sudo.
Federated Search is a Windows 7 feature and did not exist in Vista.
Vista can query a remote Vista or Windows Search 4 index for a file share, but that's separate from the feature we call Federated Search, where Windows 7 can federate queries to OpenSearch enabled sources such as SharePoint, Search Server, FAST, etc.
Again you are incorrect on several counts.
The whole point of Federated Search is that the server is NOT running Windows Search. Instead it can be running SharePoint / Search Server, FAST, or virtually any other indexing solution. Lots of indexing solutions can output RSS or Atom over HTTP, or can be easily extended to do so. Then you get the same local file experience users expect from Explorer, but with whatever remote index you want.
Also, Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 do not run WS4, they have a newer version of the indexer that *is* significantly faster and scales significantly better.
Actually it's quite relevant. Windows 7 can federate queries to a SharePoint or Search Server index using OpenSearch.
Also, Windows Vista and Win7 (and even XP with WS4 to some extent) can query remote Windows Search indexes. I use this functionality along with my Windows Home Server (running WS4) for my personal needs.
For indexing files, you're better off using Windows Search 4, a free download for Windows Server 2003. The old content indexing service is deprecated and a much older technology. It's useful in some particular scenarios but for a smaller (100,000 - 250,000 items*) corpus of file content, WS4 will work much better. And for larger repositories, SharePoint and Microsoft Search Server are almost always better options.
* = Server 2008 R2 / Win7 has a newer version of the Windows Search indexer that scales better to even larger corpuses.
Microsoft has a few solutions you can consider depending on your specific needs.
With Windows XP/2003, Vista/2008, or Windows 7 - you can install Windows Search 4 (not necessary on Win7, but recommended for Vista) on the server side to index the content, and then if you have WS4 (or Win7) on the client, it will automatically query the remote index when you perform searches against that file share.
Alternatively, if you run the free Microsoft Search Server (the Express version is free) which is based on SharePoint, you can index files on the server and then set up a Federated Search connector in Windows 7. Windows 7 supports federating to OpenSearch + RSS/Atom enabled sources, and SharePoint / Search Server support this. On current versions there's a bit of manual work to create the right OpenSearch description file, but it's pretty easy. The upcoming 2010 SharePoint version provides those out of the box (as well as some additional enhancements supported by Windows 7).
I'm actually the developer who built the OpenSearch feature in Windows 7, so if you have questions about the search options in Windows 7, you can visit my blog (brandonlive.com) and/or e-mail me (via my site).
Hope that helps.